Filed: Dec. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Avram Vineto Nika, was due to file his reply to the respondents' answer on December 4, 2017. See Order entered June 18, 2015 (ECF No. 68) (reply due 45 days after answer filed). On December 4, 2017, Nika filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 161) requesting a 91-day extension of time, to March 5, 2018, to file their reply. Nika's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary bec
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Avram Vineto Nika, was due to file his reply to the respondents' answer on December 4, 2017. See Order entered June 18, 2015 (ECF No. 68) (reply due 45 days after answer filed). On December 4, 2017, Nika filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 161) requesting a 91-day extension of time, to March 5, 2018, to file their reply. Nika's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary beca..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Avram Vineto Nika, was due to file his reply to the respondents' answer on December 4, 2017. See Order entered June 18, 2015 (ECF No. 68) (reply due 45 days after answer filed).
On December 4, 2017, Nika filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 161) requesting a 91-day extension of time, to March 5, 2018, to file their reply. Nika's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her responsibilities in other cases, and her administrative responsibilities.
The Court finds that Nika's motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested. The Court will grant the motion for extension of time.
The Court will not be inclined to further extend this deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 161) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until March 5, 2018, to file a reply to respondents' answer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered June 18, 2015 (ECF No. 68) shall remain in effect.
